American workers have suffered a “lost decade” of stagnant or falling wages. Despite productivity gains of nearly 25 percent from 2000 to 2012, “wages were flat or declined for the entire bottom 60 percent” of the workforce, according to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

EPI looked at two sets of data for “A Decade of Flat Wages,” including information from household-based surveys and information from employer-based surveys. The household data provides the most accurate picture, and it isn’t a pretty one. The median hourly earnings for American workers are back to where they were in 2000, while the highest-earning Americans are now paid over 10 percent better:

The median American worker earned $768 per week in 2000. That rose to $770 just before the financial crisis, then slid back to $768 by 2012. Worker productivity increased nearly 8 percent from 2007 to 2012, but earnings actually fell. Looking deeper into the demographics, the picture gets uglier: black men earn $15 less per week than they did in 2000, for example.

The less accurate average figures for pay and other compensation from the employer-based survey data show slight upticks in earnings due to the wage growth at the top of the income distribution dragging the numbers up. But even in that data, productivity growth has far outstripped the slight boosts in pay...

President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American. And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch? Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.

These income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare. So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family. Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009.

President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American. And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch? Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.

These income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare. So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family. Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009.

Nice job ignoring the several years before Obama took office...pure partisanship on your part.

Whereas I rightfully included the last four years as part of the overall trend.

And again you lose the argument with the non-sequiturs: there's no proof that debate-and-passage of obamacare has affected wages to the degree claimed in your post.

The economic issues are not a dem or repub blame game. They are both to blame. The dems have controlled the congress from2006 through 2010 at times with a super majority; they control half of it and the POTUS now. Republicans controlled the POTUS until 2008 the congress from 2002 until 2006 and half from 2010 until the present.

THEY BOTH HAD OPPORTUNITIES AND THEY BOTH DID NOTHING MEANINGFUL TO IMPROVE IT.

The middle class is shrinking and our economy faltering because our federal politicians do not work for us any longer; they manipulate us to vote for them by pitting us against each other and bribing their corporate base!

President Obama likes to talk about income inequality, but what matters far more is the actual income of the typical American. And how has the typical American household income fared on Obama's watch? Well, the economic "recovery" has now spanned an Olympiad, and during that time the typical American household income has not only dropped—it has dropped more than twice as much as it did during the recession.

These income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare. So Obama's method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn't working for the typical American family. Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it's just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household's income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible "recovery") corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we've been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009.

Nice job ignoring the several years before Obama took office...pure partisanship on your part.

Whereas I rightfully included the last four years as part of the overall trend.

And again you lose the argument with the non-sequiturs: there's no proof that debate-and-passage of obamacare has affected wages to the degree claimed in your post.

The usual class warfare statistics, which dont mean much. The purpose is clearly to claim that successful people are somehow responsible because someone else has a different income. That a supposed private sector "plutocracy" keeps the little man down, or other such Marxist nonsense.

A key is whether the 'bottom 60%" 10 years ago are the very same people in the bottom 60%" today. The vibrancy of people moving up, and moving down, on the income scale shows a truly free society.

The presumption of "income inequality" of course implies that the economy doesnt grow, and there is one big pot of money the Government has the power to steal from, to redistribute.

The real income inequality is between those who actually earn their income in the private sector, and those who dont really earn it, from the Government (public sector workers and others raiding the Treasury)

The real income inequality is between those who actually earn their income in the private sector, and those who dont really earn it, from the Government (public sector workers and others raiding the Treasury)

Except that's not true...not even close...

...despite your deflection on the numbers which clearly prove you wrong (though you won't admit to it).

BTW, I earn my income in the private sector, and just who the f**& do you think you are to say otherwise, huh...!??

I also suspect they have far less power to act on behalf of the people then they care to admit.

Me toos.

as far as the middle class, it has always been a stumbling block for socialists and Marxists, as well as the conservative elite. All major ideologies seem to want two classes, themselves ( the elites), and a bunch of serfs handling the dirty work.

It's not good all around. It's what people have asked for and voted for though.

The people have been duped, and have voted based on emotion, not fact or policy. For example, there is no reason for a long term deficit, butr you have otherwise normal people trying to convince themselves and us that deficits are not a problem. This deficit ( and the realted issues) will kill off the middle class. the rich will always get by, and the poor will always be taken care of by the government to the extent government cares.

It's not good all around. It's what people have asked for and voted for though.

Like I said, the middle class is a problem for liberal government.

And an even bigger problem for conservative government...

...yet one they persistently ignore with impunity.

Well, no. At least not a true conservative government. True conservative values are about the individual maintaining control over what they earn, taxing them only enough to cover essential government functions, and recognizing that, to an extent, the Constitution was written essentially to protect the economic interests of the middle class.

It's the rich, and the wooly-headed thinkers for which the middle class is a problem. People controlling their own destiny is not in the interests of the rich or the progressive mindset.

It's not good all around. It's what people have asked for and voted for though.

Like I said, the middle class is a problem for liberal government.

And an even bigger problem for conservative government...

...yet one they persistently ignore with impunity.

Well, no. At least not a true conservative government. True conservative values are about the individual maintaining control over what they earn, taxing them only enough to cover essential government functions, and recognizing that, to an extent, the Constitution was written essentially to protect the economic interests of the middle class.

It's the rich, and the wooly-headed thinkers for which the middle class is a problem. People controlling their own destiny is not in the interests of the rich or the progressive mindset.

Except that the Constitution - in economic terms - was definitely written to preserve the rich and their lands and interests.

There was no middle class back then...just rich, slaves, and non-slaves.

And these days, conservatism means placing a dollar value on peoples' lives and the hard work they do every day...strictly as a means to improve their own wealth and bottom lines. They blame the poor for being poor, the working class for working so hard, and anyone else for not stepping over their neighbor just "to get ahead".

Rich conservatives exploit the poor just like rich liberals do, so stop pretending. Their whole immigration focus is on how to keep cheap, undocumented labor from becoming more expensive, documented labor. This is known.

Great thing about this country is if you truly work hard enough you can make enough money to live very comfortably. There are so many success stories of people who either came here with nothing or grew up here with nothing and decided to make it. They took what little money they had and went for it. Busted their a55, made some mistakes, busted their a55 some more and made it big.

Everyone has the ability to change things. Don't like where you live? Move. Don't like your job? Get a new job. Don't like digging a ditch for a living? Learn a higher paying trade (electrical, plumbing, etc) or enroll in night classes to get you on a path to get a degree.

Unless one is physically or mentally unable to take care of themselves, we all have the ability to make big changes in our lives. So sick of hearing people complain about their lot in life. Stop with the pity party and do something about it.

It's not good all around. It's what people have asked for and voted for though.

Like I said, the middle class is a problem for liberal government.

And an even bigger problem for conservative government...

...yet one they persistently ignore with impunity.

Well, no. At least not a true conservative government. True conservative values are about the individual maintaining control over what they earn, taxing them only enough to cover essential government functions, and recognizing that, to an extent, the Constitution was written essentially to protect the economic interests of the middle class.

It's the rich, and the wooly-headed thinkers for which the middle class is a problem. People controlling their own destiny is not in the interests of the rich or the progressive mindset.

Except that the Constitution - in economic terms - was definitely written to preserve the rich and their lands and interests.

There was no middle class back then...just rich, slaves, and non-slaves.

And these days, conservatism means placing a dollar value on peoples' lives and the hard work they do every day...strictly as a means to improve their own wealth and bottom lines. They blame the poor for being poor, the working class for working so hard, and anyone else for not stepping over their neighbor just "to get ahead".

Rich conservatives exploit the poor just like rich liberals do, so stop pretending. Their whole immigration focus is on how to keep cheap, undocumented labor from becoming more expensive, documented labor. This is known.

Rubbish, socialst rubbish. The constitution was written to protect all our rights, economic and otherwise, from the poorest to the richest.

As far as the middle class: the typcial fighter in the american revolution was middle class. most of the people who came here came for opportunity, i.e. free, economcally secure in their posessions.

The middle class was at the forefront of the revolution, and the fledgling american experience.

It's not good all around. It's what people have asked for and voted for though.

Like I said, the middle class is a problem for liberal government.

And an even bigger problem for conservative government...

...yet one they persistently ignore with impunity.

Well, no. At least not a true conservative government. True conservative values are about the individual maintaining control over what they earn, taxing them only enough to cover essential government functions, and recognizing that, to an extent, the Constitution was written essentially to protect the economic interests of the middle class.

It's the rich, and the wooly-headed thinkers for which the middle class is a problem. People controlling their own destiny is not in the interests of the rich or the progressive mindset.

Except that the Constitution - in economic terms - was definitely written to preserve the rich and their lands and interests.

There was no middle class back then...just rich, slaves, and non-slaves.

And these days, conservatism means placing a dollar value on peoples' lives and the hard work they do every day...strictly as a means to improve their own wealth and bottom lines. They blame the poor for being poor, the working class for working so hard, and anyone else for not stepping over their neighbor just "to get ahead".

Rich conservatives exploit the poor just like rich liberals do, so stop pretending. Their whole immigration focus is on how to keep cheap, undocumented labor from becoming more expensive, documented labor. This is known.

And stop it with the "exploiting the poor" mantra. More socialist nonsense.

Although it sounds so nice, particularly in faculty lounges, the truth is that the poor have little to exploit. The meat is in the middle class. that is where you will find the elites, conservative and liberal, doing their exploiting.